TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (12) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the impugned order proceeded on the basis of an invoice. In this connection he drew our attention to Para 13(e) of the impugned order. He pointed out that the learned Commissioner had relied upon the price quoted for polypropylene granules on the basis of an invoice which was dated 24-5-1995. He pointed out that this invoice referred to poly propylene of Singapore origin. The learned Counsel therefore contended before us that no such import was shown to have taken place against this invoice dated 24-5-1995. Even otherwise he contended that polypropylene which is imported by the appellants is of USA origin. In this connection he pointed out that he had taken the plea in reply to the show cause notice that what was imported by the appellants ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out that another sample was sent to the Chief Chemist, Central Revenues Control Lab, New Delhi. He pointed out that since the demurrage was increasing, the appellants had no other alternative except to request for decision on the available materials. He also produced two documents before us. The first is with respect to polypropylene wide spec which was imported in 9/94 and the value was shown as 425 US $ per M.T. He also relied upon another Bill of Entry (BE) wherein the following goods are imported : (1) Wide spec (2) polypropylene & Polyethylene. In that BE, the price of the goods was shown as US $ 650 per M.T. This was imported against invoice dated 21-5-1995. Relying upon this document, he contended before us that the valuation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iving at the assessable value and this is the normal price as contemplated under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. He further relied upon another BE with respect to similar goods and he stated that the price also tallies which is adopted by the adjudicating authority. 4. With respect to the BE produced by the appellants wherein the price mentioned is 425 US $ the ld. SDR, stated that importation was made on 17-8-1994 whereas the present import is in 5/95 and therefore, that price cannot be made applicable to the present import. With respect to the other BE produced by the learned Counsel, the learned SDR stated that it contained polyethylene and not polypropylene and the relevant file under which the above import had been made is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est of the transaction value of identical goods. In the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, which was relied upon by the appellants reported in [1993 (68) E.L.T. 537], it was held that under the valuation rules, comparable goods must be of same country, more or less of the same quantity and in respect of the same period. Bearing in mind the above decision, we find that the goods imported by the appellants at US $ 300 is the transaction value. But in Para 13(e) of the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has relied upon an invoice dated 24-5-1995 which pertains to goods of Singapore origin. No, BE with respect to the above invoice was relied upon in the impugned order. Therefore, at this juncture, there are no materials to show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e & polyethylene. This shows enhanced rate of US $ 650 per M.T. as was decided by the department. In our view, in the facts and circumstances available in this case, the best material that can be relied upon is the evidence of the BE produced by the appellants and we therefore fix the price for assessment purpose at US $ 650 per M.T. in this case. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants so far as this import is concerned is partially allowed in the above terms. 7. As far as the import of 8 M.T. LDPE is concerned, the only evidence relied upon by the department to enhance the value from 300 US $ to 700 US $ per M.T. is a communication from the Chemical and Petrochemical Manufact-urer's association addressed to the department of ....